Apostolic Succession and Holy Orders

The third in a series on theology, practice, and history of Anglican Catholicism in The Episcopal Church.

The maintenance of the Historic Episcopate, the succession, conciliarity and synodality, and the sacramental priesthood has been a hallmark of Anglican theology and practice since the beginning. The Episcopal Church, of course, gains its name from its polity, as does the Scottish church, demonstrating just how important structure is to the Christian faith, and especially to Anglo-Catholicism.

Apostolic Succession is one of the oldest traditions of the faith. When Jesus called the Apostles, he taught them. Those teachings, along with the teachings of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and others in the early church, were passed down by them. As the church grew, the Apostles appointed deacons and bishops to administer the affairs of the church. Bishops, especially, were entrusted with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, as well as the liturgy.

While many, especially Roman Catholics, are familiar with the idea of Jesus giving “the keys of the kingdom” to Peter, including the power to loose and bind and forgive sins, which he does in Matthew 16, Jesus again in Matthew 18 gives this authority to all of the Apostles, saying “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” The Apostles then gave this authority to their successors, the bishops, through consecration liturgy that involves the laying on of hands. But what exactly does it mean, to bind and loose?

The language of binding and loosing is not unique to the New Testament. Like much of our faith and worship, this concept originally comes from Judaism. “Binding and loosing” is Rabbinic language that relates to prohibiting or allowing certain conduct. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Rabbis regularly claimed divine power to prohibit (bind) certain activities or even the use of certain things, as well as to allow (loosing) that conduct. This is the same power that Jesus invested in his Apostles, who later passed it on to the bishops. Binding and loosing is the basis for canon law, a concept recognized in all of the apostolic churches. Therefore, the bishops have the authority to prescribe and proscribe conduct related to the church, the hierarchy, and individual Christians.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, the maintenance of Apostolic Succession and the sacramental priesthood is one of the hallmarks of Anglicanism. However, there have been challenges made to Anglican claims of succession that I wish to address. These challenges have mostly been made by Catholics, though they have been made to a lesser degree by Eastern Orthodox Christians as well. The history of the conflict over Anglican orders is somewhat complicated, with various people and groups making claims based upon different criteria. So, my comments on the validity of the succession will only be a summary of the issues, not a comprehensive argument.

In 1896, Pope Leo XIII promulgated the papal bull Apostolicae curae, which declared all Anglican ordinations as “absolutely null and utterly void.” Leo’s arguments, generally speaking, were that when Archbishop Thomas Cranmer revised the liturgy for the ordination of priests and bishops in Edwardine Ordinals to the point where the language and the intent of the consecration service were changed from creating “sacramental priests” to creating “presbyters,” with Leo finding both a “defect in form” and a “defect in intention.”

Leo XIII’s declaration has a number of problems. First and foremost, Leo’s belief that, as Pope, he can dictate the belief and practice of the entire church is quite ridiculous. The Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the whole of Protestantism (yes, I know its difficult to define it as a whole) rejects the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The Pope’s authority only extends to those Christian’s who recognize his authority. Those believers and churches who reject the authority of the Roman Pope (which, depending upon which numbers you accept), either exceed or come close to exceeding the number of Christians who accept his authority). I see no reason to believe—in scripture, Holy Tradition, or theology, why Leo’s declaration would have any impact on the English church. The English church is an autocephalous and autonomous church, which submitted itself to Rome between the Council of Whitby in 644, and the 1534. From 1534 on, the English church has appointed its own head and passed its own legislation separate from Rome, just as have many other apostolic churches.

Second, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued a rejoinder to Leo’s bull, titled Saepius Officio: Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the bull Apostolicae Curae of H.H. Leo XIII. In this response, the Archbishops contrasted the Edwardian Ordinal to historical ordination texts of Bishops (both Catholic and Orthodox), and demonstrated that the supposed deficiencies in the Edwardian Ordinal were no different from numerous ancient texts that Rome did not question. Therefore, if Anglican consecrations of Bishops were invalid, then obviously, Roman and Byzantine consecrations were also invalid. Further, with regard to the argument that the intent of consecrating bishops in the English church different, the archbishops were able to show that in fact, the church intended to ordain “sacramental priests,” and that the idea that ordaining “presbyteters” (which is the office of Roman priests) would invalided Holy Orders is simply nonsensical. It an Anglican priest’s ordination is invalid because they’ve been ordained as a Presbyter, then the ordinations of all Christian clergy must also be invalid, including Catholic ordinations.

Finally, the bishops showed that Anglican priests were specifically ordained to perpetuate the sacraments, including the Eucharist (which, in Anglicanism, has always embraced the real presence of Christ in the elements), baptism, confirmation, reconciliation, matrimony, extreme unction, and holy orders. Any argument from Rome to the contrary is not simply wrong, but dishonest.

However, while the Anglican Communion has never doubted the valid and licit consecration of its bishop’s, it has taken addition measures in order to ensure that there can be no valid canonical objection to the church’s practices of ordination and consecration. For example, in 1922, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople recognized Anglican Holy Orders as valid, and in 1936, the Romanian Orthodox Church recognized Anglican Holy Orders as valid. Bishops from the Orthodox church began to participate in the consecration of Anglican Bishops as a sign of mutual identification. Additionally, Bishops of the Old Catholic Church also began to participate in Anglican consecrations, ahead of the full communion agreement between Anglican churches and the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht in the Bonn Agreement of 1931. Since this time, Anglican bishops have been consecrated by at least three other bishops, and by at least one other bishop who has undisputed Apostolic Succession (the Roman Church recognizes the Apostolic Succession and Holy Orders of Bishops of the Old Catholic Church). So, even if Leo XIII was correct in his bull (which is unlikely in the least), Anglican bishops since, at the very latest, 1931, have been consecrated by bishop’s that Rome recognizes as legitimate, even if out of communion with the Holy See.

Some have made the argument that since The Episcopal Church (and since then, others in the Anglican Communion) in council approved the ordination of women in 1977, and that of gays and lesbians in 2012, that Anglican ordinations are invalid. Some have made the claim that all Anglican ordinations are invalid because of this, while others have made the claim that only the ordination and/or conscretation of female or gay clergy are invalid. However, as was made clear at the beginning of this issue of the newsletter, the Anglican Communion, which has continued to cling to the apostolic teachings of the Apostles, holds the keys. The Episcopal Church (an autocephalous and autonomous body of the Anglican Communion), has determined within its council of Bishops that female and gay candidates for the clergy can indeed be ordained. The Bishops of the church have excercised their authority to use the keys of Saint Peter to bind and loose, an authority the Bishop of Rome has zero power to abrogate.

Finally, to make things even more complicated (for the Romans), the schismatic Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) announced earlier this month that they have come to a secret agreement with the Roman Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in June 2023, where the Roman church would recognize Anglican Holy Orders for those specific Anglican, schismatic churches who refuse to acknowledge women’s ordination, as one of several measures to create unity between ACNA and other “continuing Anglican” churches and the Roman church. Of course, there are jurisdictions within ACNA that actually do ordain women, and so this agreement (which Rome has yet to acknowledge publicly) is already problematic on its face. Of course, its quite obvious that if Rome is willing to accept ordinations and consecrations performed b y ACNA and REC and other so-called “continuing Anglican” churches, then they would also be unable to continue to reject ordinations done by other Anglicans, since the succession of ACNA, REC, and other “Anglican” groups depend upon the valid succession of the Church of England. However, as I’ve noted above, Anglican holy orders do not depend upon the acknowledgement of the Roman Pontiff, as he lacks jurisdiction over the universal church, as much as he wishes to claim such.